www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News ecumenical patriarch

Alex,

I too have heard the commemoration of an Orthodox Patriarch by a BC priest.

Tony

Tony, unfortunately I don't have the book(s) at my disposal. However, if it was he, then it would have to be in either his Liturgical Year of the Byzantine-Slavonic Rite or The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

(Both books are available right now at www.bookfinder.com [bookfinder.com] .)

Lemko,

A quick look online provided me with two links, one Catholic [byzantines.net] one Orthodox [michael-bishop.com] for the texts of this service. I do not know if either represent "official" texts, it is what I found.

Perhaps a more exhaustive search will turn up more texts for purposes of comparison. Thanks for pointing this out, I had never noticed and it is indeed interesting.

Tony

I think we need to make it clear that the oecumenical patriarch is only patriarch of his own local Church. Otherwise, he is a diocesan bishop with a primacy of honour. He is NOT oecumenical patriarch of the Orthodox Church. Each local Church will look to it's own primate.

The oecumene was the world as the Romans, of both Old and New Rome perceived it. The archbishop, and later patriarch of New Rome had authority over this oecumene, but with the emergence of the local Churches of the Balkans and the fall of Byzantium to the Turks the oecumene shrunk and shrunk to its present proportions when one discounts the New World and Western Europe - the 'barbarian' lands assumed by Constantinople.

The patriarch of Constantimople is not a Universal Primate, though he would like to think of himself that way. Orthodoxy has no sovereign pontiff. Sadly, Patriarch Bartholomeos doesn't seem to know or understand this.

With love in Christ -
Mark, monk and siner,

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Does Orthodoxy not have a theology of Primacy at all then?

And, if so, how are we to understand it?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Where the faithful are gathered around a truly Orthodox bishop the Church is present in its perfect entirity. Within the comunion of faith bishops and their people are cojoined as the family of the Church. They become one in faith, united as the mystical body of Christ to whom belongs the universal Lordship of His Church.

Local Churches may have their primates, their elder fathers who share the apostolic rule administration of the Church as successors of the apostles. Some of them will be great saints and to them we look because they are preachers of divine grace. Their influence will be a spiritual one and may cause all of the Church to bow before them. However, this will not alter their earthly power as shepherds of the Church. The honour given to them is not connected to power or primacy, but to their wisdom and sanctity. God may confirm them with a spiritual pre-eminence and yet they may, as archpastors, be the spiritual brothers of hierarchs who are far from perfect, yet remain their equals in canonical terms.

As the world falls into apostasy it is difficult to find such men, and the local units
of geniune Orthodoxy become smaller and smaller. Yet they will be perfected in Christ and the little flock will greet the Lord when He comes again in glory.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

But Dear Father Mark:

Patriarch Bartolomew has almost no authority, nobody seems to recongnize even his primacy of honour. What happens in the cases where his intervention was necessary? like Estonia?
And now his intervention would be necessary in Ukraine and Moldova at least as a mediator between the different patriarchates. Wasn't this the function the Primate of Honour has had since the beggining?

And what about other Patriarchs. I mean, Alexis II of Russia, sometimes he acts almost like a Pope with canonical primacy of territories in many different nations and outside Europe and Russia, appointing Bishops and giving autocephaly status to a Church in the USA.

And if the "barbarian lands" were to be administered by the EP; why isn't Canada, Mexico and the USA canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Now the OCA's statements say that the OCA is the autocephalous Church of these three nations.

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

Some of our Orthodox brothers, specially those not into communion with the Great Church of Christ of Constantinople and the other Orthodox patriarchal sees and autonomous and autocephalous Churches as well as those who support Third Rome theory and the idea of the primacy of the Patriarchate of Moscow in the whole Orthodox Church, would like to see the Oecumenical Patriarch (a title that the Church of Rome refused at the times of Saint John the Faster and that finally accepted) as just the bishop of the small Orthodox community of the Turkish city of Istambul with no kind of primacy in the Orthodox Church but me, as Catholic and Christian who tries to keep the Tradition, can not ignore the second canon of the First Council of Constantinople (381), that states:

“because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome”

and the 28th canon of the The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), wich states:

“Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out--the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome -- we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him”.

The Patriarch of Constantinople is not only the bishop of Istambul, he is the Archbishop of the Ecclesiastical province of Constantinople, with patriarchal jurisdiction, after the subtraction of the Iluricum and Southern Italy from the Roman Patriarchate by the Iconoclast emperors, of the whole Byzantine Empire (with the exception of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem and the historical autonomous Churches of Cyprus and Sinai). The Oecumenical Councils also attribute to the Oecumenical Councils the jurisdiction over those countries that, although were not part of the Byzantine Empire, received the Gospel from the Church of Constantinople. Finally, the Ecumenical Patriarch is the primate of the whole Eastern Church in the same way that the pope of Rome is the primate of the Western Church, and “enjoys the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome”. I do not know why but The Ecumenical Patriarchate seems to have a lot of enemies in our days, they use different arguments against it, some of them try to find theological and canonical reasons to deny the primacy of the Church of Constantinople, and other try to spoil the reputation of the person of the Ecumenical Patriarch accusing him of heresy or of taking uncanonnical decisions or even putting in doubt his Christian life. Till the moment nobody has proved these accusations. So that, if I were Orthodox, I would have no problem to conclude my post saying: Βαρθολομαίου του Παναγιωτάτου Οικουμενικού Πατριάχου, πολλά τα έτη!!!

Yours in Christ

The patriarch has a lot of enemies because of his own betrayal of Orthodoxy!!!

He should have a primacy of honour, yes, but he needs to be Orthodox first.

In Christ,
Mark, monk and sinner.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate had always a lot of enemies, specially - I am very sorry to say this , Father, in your country - even a lot of centuries before the adoption by Constantinople of the New Revised Julian Calendar and that Constantinople started the ecumenical dialoge with other Christian denominations during the last century. Russians continued to consider Greeks traitors to the Orthodoxy even after they refused the union proclaimed at the Council of Florence. The Fall of Constantinople were for them the punishment for their sins. That gave Russians the opportunity of developing the Third Rome ecclesiastical and political theory.

You are absolutely right Francisco. There has been much prejudice against Constantinople for worldy reasons. Russia has been very anti for reasons of power and influence. I wholeheartedly agree with you!!!

The third-Rome theory is a major problem. It paved the way for the unholy alliance of the Petersburg monarchy and then the Soviet government with the state Church, weakening the postion of the Church and allowing it to become a department of state.

Please do not understand me brother Francisco, I do not support this idea. It tried to replace the Kingdom of God with an earthly monarchy and state and was a contributory factor of the schism of the Russian Orthodox Church.

With love in Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.

The combination of religion, political power and nationalism has provoked extremely bad results in the history of many countries, Russia, Greece and Spain are just some of these countries. We know very well at my country, Spain, the results of the alliance of religion and political power. Kissing your hand and asking for your blessing I wish you and all those who follow the old calendar a very merry feast of the Circumcision of the Lord and Saint Basil and a very Happy New (Civil) year plenty of God�s blessings.

Dear Francisco,

Have you seen or read the book 'Where Angels Fall'. It rightly points out the destructive effects of the combinations of religion and nationalism that Orthodoxy is so prone to! I know it's happened in Catholic countries too, but the locality of Orthodoxy makes us very prone to this disastrous trait. This is how Russians, Serbs or Greeks think thatOrthodoxy is THEIRS and that they are God's chosen people.

May the Lord bless you. Pray for me a sinner

Mark, unworthy monk .

In my opinion, if there is any Patriarch that must return to "True Orthodoxy" it is the present patriarch of Moscow. Patriarch Bartholomew, has always been able to deal with people from different churches with respect and love, (something I think Christ was trying to make us understand). Some people don't seem to read the scriptures I guess.
Lauro

Russian Orthodox Church history has demonstrated a peculiar xenophobia. In pre-Petrine Russia even Orthodox faithful of other countries were treated with suspicion and only tolerated because their visits, if they were hierarchs, brought a certain prestige to Muscovy as it claimed to be the Third-Rome and defender of the Orthodox faith.

Sadly, foreign hierarchs fanned the flames by flattering monarchs and the patriarchate to hyperbolic extremes in order to extract much needed funds to help the holy places within the Turkish empire.

It seems that most of the leaders of world Orthodoxy need to get back to basics, defening Orthodoxy, but in a positive way that breathes the spirit of the Gospels and the spririt of love and charity. this may still call for harsh words and actions, but ones whose motives are honest and clear. One of the worst aspects of the 'True Orthodox' Churches is the bitterness and rancour which has marred a righteous struggle and sown seeds of division.

With love in Christ -
Mark, monk and sinner.